All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.
THE IMPACT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND CHRIST-CENTERED FOLLOWERSHIP ON THE PROBLEM OF POLICE
BRUTALITY AGAINST MINORITIES
__________________
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education
__________________
by
Daniel Eugene Reinhardt December 2020
THE IMPACT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND CHRIST-CENTERED FOLLOWERSHIP ON THE PROBLEM OF POLICE
BRUTALITY AGAINST MINORITIES Daniel Eugene Reinhardt
Read and Approved by:
__________________________________________
Timothy Paul Jones (Chair)
__________________________________________
John David Trentham
Date ______________________________
To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who changed my mind, my heart, and gives me purpose.
To my wife, Yvette, who has stood by me with unwavering faith and endurance. May we never forget what God has delivered us from nor our hope in Him for the future.
Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . vi
PREFACE . . . vii
Chapter 1. RESEARCH CONCERN . . . 1
Thesis . . . 5
Two Gaps in Existing Leadership Literature . . . 10
Research Methodology . . . 14
Delimitations . . . 16
Research Assumptions . . . 17
Definitions . . . 18
2. THE POLICE HISTORY AND CULTURE . . . 20
The History of the American Police, Police Power, and Abuse . . . 20
Police Brutality and Police Departments as Social Structures .. . . 37
Summary . . . 48
3. LEADERSHIP IN LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . 50
Contemporary Leadership . . . 51
Servant Leadership . . . 67
Summary . . . 76
4. LEADERSHIP MODEL SYNTHESIS: CHRIST-CENTERED FOLLOWERSHIP AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP . . . 77
Followership . . . 77
Leadership Model Synthesis . . . 87
Summary . . . 107
5. SERVANT AND SHEPHERD MODEL APPLICATION . . . 109
Leadership and Organizational Change . . . 110
Leadership Application . . . 118
Law Enforcement Mission . . . 126
Conclusion . . . 142
Further Research . . . 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . 144
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page
1. Inverse Consistency Protocol . . . 86
2. Modified Protocol . . . 87
3. Leadership model synthesis . . . 105
4. Servant and shepherd model with application . . . 125
Figure 1. Servant and shepherd leadership model progressive impact . . . 141
PREFACE
I am thankful and indebted to the people who have supported and helped me complete this thesis. From the initial research to the final product, my doctoral
supervisor, Dr. Timothy Jones, provided guidance and instruction, and his feedback has been invaluable. My cohort has also been a source of encouragement and strength.
My mother, Jeannie, read and edited every chapter. I cannot thank her enough for all her time and efforts. To my wife, Yvette, who has supported me, prayed for me, and sacrificed. Lastly, I am thankful that God has not only provided the means and opportunity but also given me a desire to keep pressing forward.
Daniel Reinhardt Lorain, Ohio
May 2020
CHAPTER 1 RESEARCH CONCERN
Racial tensions have existed to differing degrees in the United States throughout the country’s history, and law enforcement has been closely linked to this unfortunate reality.1 As a result, there is an existing tension and mistrust of the police in many African-American communities.2 Furthermore, recent events wherein the police have used force to apprehend individuals from racial minority groups, specifically African Americans, have perhaps increased the awareness of the tension between the police and racial minorities.3 Anthony Stanford explains,
1 Gina Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power in America (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC–
CLIO, 2017). Robertiello explains the role of the police historically starting from the 1600s to the current era. In doing so, she notes key events such as an early form of law enforcement that was utilized to return escaped slaves to their owners, law enforcement during the civil rights movement, and current events that have led to civil unrest and tension between the police and racial minorities.
2 Malcolm D. Homes and Brad W. Smith explain, “Blacks see the police as oppressors protecting the interests of the white community. . . . Many minority citizens perceive the police as a real danger in their day-to-day lives.” Malcolm D. Homes and Brad W. Smith, Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 2-6. The authors note that racial minorities perceive the police as a legitimate threat to their safety. Furthermore, the police are often understood as oppressors rather than public servants that are interested in helping the community. Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 2-6. Robertiello confirms, “Surveys consistently show Blacks are less likely than Whites to trust local police and to treat both races equally.” Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power, 213.
3 Robertiello notes,
The 2010s has witnessed an increased criminalization of public demonstrations. Additionally, the upsurge of police brutality has once again become more prevalent within the decade. More importantly, due to the rise of social media activism, many of these accounts of police abuse have been documented and posted on social media outlets, online newspapers, blogs, and YouTube. The Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements are undoubtedly two of the largest social movements of the 21st century. These political and social demonstrations propelled into national movements making news headlines across the world.” (Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power, 221)
Robertiello also notes key cases that have led to increased tension and drawn attention to the need for police reform: Timothy Thomas, Sean Bell, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Ezell Ford, Timir Rice, Freddy Gray, Walter Scott, and Sandra Bland. Robertiello, 221, 243–309. Pegues references a 2013 survey in the New York Times that showed that only 32 percent of African-Americans believed that police relations
The Ferguson incident and its aftermath have focused attention on the chasm between young black males and police across the country. . . . Tense protests, exasperation, and racially explosive situations related deaths of the unarmed black males such as Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Eric Garner have become a catalyst to examine the treatment of black males by law enforcement organizations.4 Currently, the police may be at the culmination of a long and unfortunate history of events that have afflicted African Americans and other racial minorities. Leadership in law enforcement should be compelled to respond. The police have a duty to keep the peace by protecting and serving, and police leaders are to ensure officers fulfill this commitment. If police leaders ignore the tension and violence, then they are negligent.
Local law enforcement agencies, the courts, and federal law enforcement agencies are not blind to the problem and have responded. The history of law enforcement is replete with responses and organizational reforms designed to mitigate problems related to abusive practices in local law enforcement.5 Nonetheless, the problem of police brutality remains, and many African Americans feel that little to no progress has been made as a result of the police reforms implemented following the civil rights movement.6 Some may have concluded that organizational reforms have been largely ineffective in adequately
with African-Americans has improved since 1963. Furthermore, in 2014, a year after Michael Brown was killed, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey and 80 percent of African-Americans surveyed believed the incident “raised important issues about race.” Jeff Pegues, Black and Blue: Inside the Divide Between the Police and Black America (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2017), 101.
4 Anthony Stanford, Copping Out: The Consequences of Police Corruption and Misconduct (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2015), 166.
5 Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power. Robertiello overviews the history of law enforcement reform by noting the key court decisions, federal commissions, and local law enforcement applications that were largely a result of controversial and abusive applications by local law enforcement.
Many of the changes were orchestrated because of the police using force against African-Americans. The LA zoot suit riots are an early example, and the beating of Rodney King is a more recent incident that led to organizational changes in local law enforcement.
6 Pegues notes, “According to a 2013 survey conducted just before the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington, 48 percent of whites claimed that a lot of progress has been made since 1963, yet only 32 percent of blacks agreed with that assessment of police relations.”
Pegues, Black and Blue, 101.
addressing the problem of police brutality against racial minorities, particularly African Americans.7
There is a need to identify contributing factors to police brutality by looking further into the police context and thought processes of police officers with the intention of finding solutions that enable organizational reforms. In other words, external measures alone have not proven successful, and leaders in law enforcement must identify internal factors contributing to the problem of police brutality against racial minorities. The focus on internal factors, however, does not suggest that external factors do not contribute to police brutality. Nor does this thesis suggest that internal factors within the police context are the sole reason for police brutality. Though, the focus of this thesis is on the internal factor—how they contribute to the problem of police brutality, and how leadership can respond.
Some of the contributing internal factors to police brutality may be social identity, power, and the nature of police departments as social structures. The police have a social identity that can be distinct in comparison to the social identity of racial minorities in the areas that police officers operate.8 Additionally, the police possess significant power over the public, and power can damage the character of officers and manifest in the abuse of power, specifically police brutality.9 Perhaps further exacerbating the problem is the
7 Homes and Smith note, “The findings of various empirical studies support the argument that racial/ethnic minorities are victimized disproportionately by police brutality.” Furthermore, the authors note that law enforcement agencies rely on organizational reforms implemented through training and
supervision to reduce police brutality. Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 9. However,
Robertiello notes the “difficulty to change police behavior via training” related to police brutality given the current overarching philosophy of law enforcement. Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power, 205.
8 Homes and Smith explain that police officers have a formative subculture that results in a social identity. The social identity of police officers is disparate from the social identity of racial minorities.
This disparity contributes to social distance and ultimately leads to a proclivity for abuse. Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 52–53.
9 Fredrick Douglass noted how the power over him changed the character of his slave owner.
She was seemingly transformed from gentle and caring to harsh and abusive. Douglass described the transformation as a result of “the fatal poison of irresponsible power.” Fredrick Douglass, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2003), 40. The Stanford
nature of police departments as social structures. Social structures are formed by individuals; however, they also influence the behaviors of people within a particular social structure.10 The police subculture and the overall social structure of a police department can influence officers’ behavior by promoting problematic and immoral attitudes.11
The combination of social distance, power and authority over people, and a potentially problematic social structure appear to exist in law enforcement creating a climate ripe for abuse in the form of police brutality. Drastically different social identities can lead to social distance and the dehumanization of a people group; and power,
inherently dangerous alone, when coupled with the dehumanization of a people group, increases the proclivity and probability for abuse. Stated succinctly, the police possess a social identity that can result in social distance and the dehumanization of others, as well as the power to commit abuse.12 These internal problems are not resolved by organizational
Prison Experiment, although problematic in some respects, illustrated the behavior change that can take place when group identities exist and one group has power over another. The study may reflect the human proclivity for the abuse of power. The authors selected seemingly peaceful and well-adjusted college students to participate in a mock prison experiment. They randomly chose students to play the role as a guard or prisoner. The experiment quickly became problematic and behaviors changed dramatically. Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo, “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison,” Journal of Criminology and Penology 1 (February 1973): 69–97 .
10 Daniel Daily notes that social structures influence moral agents, yet sinful people construct evil social structures. The reciprocal relationship draws attention to the influential danger social structures can have on an individual’s actions. Daniel J. Daily, “Structures of Virtue and Vice,” New Blackfriars 92 (2011): 341–57. Daniel Finn explains that social structures are ontologically real. They are formed by a collective of individuals but have an independent existence and they influence individuals that are part of the structure. Social structures have causal impact on individuals. The social structures have norms that affect individuals within the structure. These norms are in the form of restrictions, enablements, and incentives. Daniel K. Finn, “What Is a Sinful Social Structure?” Theological Studies 77, no. 1 (2016): 136–64.
11 Jack Howell and Charles Huth note, “The [police] department member is allowed (if not encouraged) to entertain demeaning, prejudicial, attitudes and have private conversations that are slanderous and defaming.” Jack L. Cowell and Charles Huth, Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect: Transforming Law Enforcement and Police Training (New York: CRC Press, 2010), xvii.
12 Philip Zimbardo attempts to answer why seemingly good people commit evil acts. He analyzes the Stanford prison experiment and proposes that there were systemic contributions to the phenomenon of evil actions. He notes that dehumanization, power, and systemic problems with culture are all contributing factors. He illustrates his conclusions by highlighting and analyzing prisoners abused by American soldiers
reforms alone. Law enforcement needs a coherent and efficacious leadership paradigm to address the internal contributing factors that lead to police brutality.
Christian leaders in law enforcement are embedded in this context. Although Christian leaders should examine the problem in the context of a biblical worldview, they face a difficult challenge in creating a leadership theory that is authentically Christian and applicable in public law enforcement organizations. The Bible is not a recognized source of authority for leadership in secular contexts. Additionally, the Christian law enforcement leader is not leading a group of Christians—he or she is leading a group that can
represent a conglomerate of worldviews.
Thesis
Racial tensions clearly remain in urban communities in the United States, and the deaths of individuals in racial minority groups as a result of police action have provided the impetus for at least some level of reform in law enforcement. The Christian worldview in particular calls for leaders in law enforcement to address the problem.13 Therefore, it is paramount for Christians to explore how Christian leadership theory can address the problem of police brutality in contexts with high concentrations of racial minorities.
In addressing this concern, one must recognize that although there are clearly distinctions between leadership in the church and leadership in law enforcement, there are also commonalities. Police departments are secular institutions that do not submit
and historical examples to include the Nazis and other notorious groups. Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (New York: Random House Trade, 2008).
13 Godfrey Harold notes that evangelicals have equated addressing social injustice with abandoning sound doctrine and “watering-down” the gospel. However, writing from the context of the racial disparity in South Africa, he argues that evangelical Christians are called to address social injustice because the true gospel does not promote disengaging but mandates social action: “The church must respond, not in an ‘ascetic’ life by disconnecting itself and becoming otherworldly, but by immersing and identifying itself in words and deeds with the struggles of the majority in post-apartheid South Africa; to become the voice of the voiceless and marginalized by becoming the prophetic conscience to government.” Godfrey Harold, “Evangelicals and Social Justice: Towards an Alternative Evangelical Community,” Conspectus 25 (2018): 25. Likewise, evangelical leaders in law enforcement, driven by the gospel and Christian
worldview, must engage and influence the governmental institution of law enforcement.
practices and institutional mission to Scripture, yet Christian influence and Christian leadership are not completely foreign to police departments. In fact, the first police departments in the United States were founded on principles drafted by a Christian—Sir Robert Peel—partly as a response to pressure from evangelicals to transform the British legal system.14 Furthermore, contemporary leadership emphasizes empowering and serving followers, which are components of Christian leadership,15 and law enforcement—
at least to some extent—has been impacted by these specific contemporary leadership trends.16 Therefore, applying Christian components of leadership to law enforcement is not a radical or untenable practice, and some aspects of authentically Christian leadership theory can be synthesized into an existing law enforcement leadership theory for
implementation into the law enforcement context. The first step is to identify an authentically Christian model of leadership as a foundation for the synthesis.
This thesis intends to utilize not only a Christian model of leadership but also a followership model of leadership that can be used in the law enforcement context.
14 Eric Evans notes Peel’s background in explaining his view of Roman Catholicism: “As an early-nineteenth-century Protestant, also, Peel’s background and upbringing conditioned him to believe that Roman Catholicism was a primitive, authoritarian religion appropriate only to simple minds and inimical to liberty and freedom of speech.” Eric J. Evans, Sir Robert Peel: Statesmanship, Power and Party, 2nd ed.
(New York: Routledge, 2006), 9. M. A. Lewis notes that Peel was sympathetic to “British evangelicals”
protests of the legal system, which contributed to Peel’s “sweeping penal reform.” M. A. Lewis, “Peel’s Legacy,” The FBI Enforcement Bulletin 80, no. 12 (2011): 8.
15 Justin A. Irving and Mark L. Strauss note that “controlling leadership” is being replaced by empowering and servanthood and these practices reflect biblical leadership:
Increasingly, researchers are demonstrating that such empowering and servant-oriented practices are not only a good idea but also produce superior results. . . . This model of empowering and follower- focused leadership is compelling, and throughout this book we aim to provide you with biblical insight, research-based reflection, and practical recommendations for how you can grow as an empowering leader as well. (Justin A. Irving and Mark L. Strauss, Leadership in Christian
Perspective: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Practices for Servant Leaders [Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2019], 2)
16 Ken J. Peak et al. note that law enforcement is influenced by contemporary leadership trends: “The police profession is a consumer of leadership theory.” Ken J. Peak et al., Police Resources:
International Association of Chiefs of Police Promotional Examination Preparation Manual (New York:
Pearson, 2012), 3. The authors specifically name servant leadership as an emerging leadership theory in law enforcement, noting that it includes “empowering” and focusing on followers. Peak et al., Police Resources, 39–40.
Followership is a relatively recent leadership concept, and is closely tied to the leadership process and leadership construction.17 Christ-centered followership as leadership is a uniquely Christian expression of followership theory that might serve as a helpful
foundation for a synthesis with law enforcement leadership theory.18 Therefore, discerning how Christ-centered followership as leadership can inform or transform an existing leadership theory in law enforcement is the next step in crafting a Christian leadership model as followership for law enforcement.
Servant leadership is a leadership style that is prevalent and arguably preferred in law enforcement today.19 Additionally, there is some level of coherence between
17 Mary Uhl-Bien et al. trace the history of followership and provide a fairly comprehensive literature review. In doing so, the authors trace the progression of leadership theory from leader centric to follower centric to more relational conceptions of leadership. Furthermore, the article identifies two theoretical frameworks for followership: role based and constructionist. Followership theory involves the study of the nature and effect of followers in the leadership process. Therefore, followership includes followers’ roles, behaviors, and the leadership process. Mary Uhl-Bien et al., “Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda,” Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014): 83-104.
18 Michael J. Wilder and Timothy Paul Jones present a leadership model predicated on Christ- centered followership. Leaders derive their power and authority from Christ; thus, power and authority ultimately belong to Christ. Furthermore, Scripture is the leader’s source of truth. As a result, leaders do not reign over a community but have been granted stewardship by Christ for a community. Thus, submission to Christ is the foundation of leadership. Other Christian models of leadership have utilized timeless leadership principles extracted from Scripture; however, this effort has often been misguided with Scripture being taken out of its proper context. In light of this problem, the authors examined the life of Christ holistically and in its proper context to include the entire metanarrative of Scripture. The purpose of this method was to provide a foundation for leadership drawn from a comprehensive examination of Scripture. Thus, Wilder and Jones provided a definition of leadership that is holistic and authentically Christian. The authors’ definition has key components: (1) a bearer of God’s image living in union with Christ; (2) one who empowers fellow laborers; (3) followership, delegated power, and the necessity of community. Michael J. Wilder and Timothy Paul Jones, The God Who Goes Before You: Pastoral Leadership as Christ-Centered Followership (Nashville: B & H, 2018), 16.
19 Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor note that servant leadership is an emerging leadership theory in law enforcement. This source is a foundation for promotion exams and leadership training in law enforcement. The authors’ recognition of servant leadership is strong evidence for its presence and viability in law enforcement. Worth noting is the recent nature of servant leadership in law enforcement; the 7th edition of this work did not recognize or address servant leadership. Charles R.
Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor, Police Administration: Structures, Processes, and Behaviors, 8th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2012). Genarro F. Vito and George E.
Richards surveyed 126 police managers on leadership style. The managers were from 23 states and had attended the Southern Police Institute. There was a strong preference for the style of servant leadership where leaders follow the tenets of servant leadership. Furthermore, there was a general rejection of traditional autocratic styles and hands-off styles. Genarro F. Vito and George E. Richards, “Emphasizing the Servant
servant leadership and followership.20 Consequently, Christ-centered followership as leadership can serve as a foundation for a synthesis with servant leadership.
This thesis proposes that a law enforcement leadership model predicated on Christ-centered followership with a biblically based shepherding framework enhanced by servant leadership can shape individual officers and the police subculture. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to construct a new model of leadership for law enforcement that impacts the problem of police brutality. The model is intended to serve as an internal safeguard against police brutality in contexts with high concentrations of racial minorities.
This leadership model is predicated on the Christian worldview, and the servant leadership component is defined and expressed in a distinctly Christian manner.
The emphasis on shepherding as a metaphor for leadership has distinct Christian elements and applications. Nonetheless, the model is intended to be applicable for Christians and non-Christians; this application is grounded in an understanding of common grace that has been derived from Abraham Kuyper.
Abraham Kuyper, as an evangelical Christian, clearly affirmed that sin has distorted man’s thinking, and that conversion to Christianity is necessary to restore proper reasoning that enables holistic understanding;21 nonetheless, he affirmed the true
in Public Service: The Opinions of Police Managers,” International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management 34, no. 4 (2011): 674–86.
20 Nicole Davis notes that servant leadership is a follower-focused leadership theory.
Furthermore, she connects Greenleaf and Kelley concerning the nature and importance of followers. She also identifies several common themes between servant leadership and followership. She draws an inverse relationship between the two conceptions than are proposed in this thesis; nonetheless, her work reflects the apparent coherence between servant leadership and followership. Nicole Davis, “Review of Followership Theory and Servant Leadership Theory: Understanding How Servant Leadership Informs Followership,” in Servant Leadership and Followership: Examining the Impact of Workplace Behavior, ed. Crystal J. Davis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 207–23.
21 Abraham Kuyper notes,
Sin is what lures and tempts people to place science outside of a relationship with God, thereby stealing science from God, and ultimately turning science against God. The flower of true science possesses its root in the fear of the Lord, grows forth from the fear of the Lord, and finds in the fear of the Lord its principle, its motive, its starting point. If through sin a person is cut off from its root that proceeds from the fear of the Lord, the inevitable result must be that such a person will present
and profound insights of non-Christian thinkers.22 Kuyper argued that due to the systemic and distorting nature of sin, God extended common grace to all people and gifted them with wisdom and the powers to reason and investigate.23 As a result, non-Christians can access some aspects of truth because of common grace and engage as societal stewards who cultivate order and peace.24
The leadership model proposed in this thesis may, therefore, be accessible and applicable to non-believers who can recognize—through common grace—the validity of
as science something that is a façade without any essence. (Abraham Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder:
Common Grace in Science and Art [Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2011], 51)
Kuyper also explains that true understanding and science necessitates Christian conversion and the Bible:
“The operation of God’s Spirit within the investigating subject must be paired at this point with the objective operation of the Spirit in special revelation. Precisely at this point special revelation shines its light in common grace, in order to strengthen it.” Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder, 81–82.
22 Kuyper explains, “Among the Greeks, who were completely deprived of the light of Scripture, a science arose that continues to amaze us with the many beautiful and true things it offers us. The names Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have always been esteemed among Christian thinkers.” Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder, 52. Additionally, John M. Frame affirms that non-Christians are not unable to acquire knowledge:
“We may legitimately assert that unbelievers do sometimes repress the truth . . . but we should not generalize so much that we say all unbelievers always do that. To say that . . . would be to deny to the unbeliever anything that could be legitimately called knowledge.” John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1987), 53.
23 Kuyper writes that common grace consisted of wisdom that was “useful for the moment in practical living,” and a “second element” that provided insight as the “pathway was opened so that through the indefatigable labor of further research, observation, analysis, imagination, and reflection, a person can acquire at least some knowledge of the external side of things and can learn to understand the appearance of things together.” Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder, 61. Herman Bavinck supports man’s God given abilities to reason and discern:
The human intellect also has the capacity to abstract general and universal judgements from particular events. Contrary to all forms of nominalism, which by denying the reality of universals in effect makes all science impossible, realism correctly assumes their reality in the thing itself and therefore also in the human mind subsequent to the thing itself. The theological explanation for this is the conviction that it is the same Logos who created both the reality outside of us and the laws of thought within us.
(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 207-8)
24 In the introduction to Wisdom and Wonder, Vincent E. Bacote notes that common grace according to Kuyper equips “humans to obey God’s first commandment for stewardly dominion over the creation,” and common grace “is seen in the human inclination to serve one’s neighbor through work, pursue shalom in broken social situations, and defend equality in all forms of human interaction.” Vincent E. Bacote, in Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder, 26.
the model and thereby utilize the model to exercise order and peace.25 Perhaps the model will be best expressed by Christians who grasp its deeper relationship to the Christian faith; however, the model is potentially applicable to anyone who recognizes the verity and applicability of the practical concepts and applications.
Two Gaps in Existing Leadership Literature
The void in the literature exists in two primary areas. First, few, if any, scholars have explored implementing Christian leadership theory into an applicable model for police departments. Second, few, if any, scholars have offered an efficacious plan predicated on the Christian worldview to address the problem of police brutality.
This thesis addresses both voids.
Christian Leadership in Law Enforcement
The relationship of Christianity and leadership in law enforcement has been virtually unexplored. In fact, surprisingly, until the 1990s, little scholarly work had been done connecting spirituality and police work at all. Judith A. Kowalski and Dean J.
Collins offered a seminal work into the relationship of spirituality and law enforcement.
Their book is a small and introductory phenomenological study that captures the insights of six police officers regarding the relationship between their work experiences and faith.26 The existing literature on law enforcement and spirituality largely addresses
25 John David Trentham affirms Kuyper’s perspective regarding non-Christians arguing that humanity inherently has certain God given capacities: “Unquestionably though, human beings possess and leverage ‘powers of discernment’ (Heb. 5:14) which entail the capacity for rational analysis and reflective judgement. Those powers are capacities imparted through the divine image of God in humanity.” John David Trentham, “Reading the Social Sciences Theologically (Part 1): Approaching and Qualifying Models of Human Development,” Christian Educational Journal 16, no. 3 (2019): 468.
26 Judith A. Kowalski and Dean J. Collins, To Serve and Protect: Law Enforcement Officers Reflect on Their Faith and Work (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992). Ginger Charles writes an article as a reflection and summary of her PhD dissertation from 2005 with the same title. She notes that when she began her research into spirituality and police work in 2004, the only existing study had been conducted in 1992, by Kowalski and Collins. She confirms that spirituality in law enforcement is largely unexplored.
spirituality from the perspective of the police officer’s experience with inherent stress, danger, and the chaotic experience that characterizes police work.27
Some recent attention has been given to the relationship between spirituality and leadership. Ramon Moran notes that spirituality in law enforcement can be related to virtuous leadership (associated with commitment to integrity, values, principles, and ethical standards in policing).28 Samuel Feemster focuses on the connection between spirituality and the wellbeing of officers, and he notes that police managers must be aware of this reality and promote spiritual health among the officers they oversee.29
The literature that does exist on this topic is religiously pluralistic and does not necessarily have a Christian emphasis.30 Therefore, there is little scholarly work related either to Christianity and law enforcement or to leadership in law enforcement predicated on a Christian foundation. Michael Williams has written an article on servant leadership in law enforcement. He loosely ties Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership to a few biblical
Ginger Charles, “How Spirituality Is Incorporated in Police Work: A Qualitive Study,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 78, no. 5 (2009): 22–25.
27 Antoinette M. Ursitti studied the spirituality of police offices and the relationship of their spirituality to work stress. In doing so, she reviewed the literature and found that there has been minimal scholarly work done in spirituality among police officers. Antoinette M. Ursitti, “A Quantitative Assessment of Spirituality in Police Officers and the Relationship to Police Stress” (EdD diss., Olivet Nazarene University, 2011). Jonathan Smith and Ginger Charles note the problematic nature of police work and the effects on officers’ wellbeing. They recognize the positive effects of spirituality to help officers cope with the difficult nature of police work. Jonathan Smith and Ginger Charles, “The Relevance of Spirituality in Policing: A Dual Analysis,” International Journal of Police Science & Management 12, no. 3 (2010): 320–
38.
28 Ramon Moran, “Workplace Spirituality in Law Enforcement: A Content Analysis of the Literature,” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 14, no. 4 (2017): 350.
29 In making his point, Feemster quotes Lieutenant Adan Tejada, University of California Police Department, Berkley California: “Law enforcement managers must recognize the short and long-term effects of this work and . . . must protect those who they task with the protection of others.” Samuel L. Feemster,
“Spirituality: The DNA of Law Enforcement Practice,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 76, no. 11 (2007):
7–8.
30 Kowalski and Collins, Ursitti, Smith, and Charles, Moran, and Feemster all address spirituality as a broad conception of religious expression and do not differentiate between differing faiths and religious traditions.
principles and emphasizes the careful use of power without abandoning the officer’s duty to arrest and enforce.31 Williams does not appear to attempt a leadership synthesis nor is he writing at a scholarly level. He is writing to police officers at the street level and is simply explaining Greenleaf’s principles from a Christian perspective. His primary emphasis for application is that neither servant leadership nor Christian leadership concepts are contradictory to the duties of a police officer.
Williams’ article and his attempt to relate servant leadership to Christianity highlight the reality that little scholarly work has been done concerning servant leadership from a Christian perspective in law enforcement. Servant leadership not only lacks a Christian foundation, but it lacks a clear philosophical foundation; although some leadership scholars have highlighted this reality, few in law enforcement have addressed the void.32
The Problem of Police Brutality
To some extent, police brutality may be attributed to internal factors. Power, the influence of the police subculture, and social identities appear to play a role in police brutality.33 Organizational reforms have failed to resolve the problem, and a solution that
31 Michael Williams, “Servant-Leadership in Law Enforcement,” Chaplain, Exclusive, Leadership News (January 2016): 9–10.
32 Timothy Robert Cochrell notes that Greenleaf relies on an “eclectic spirituality” and servant leadership is “shaped by a syncretism of Unitarian, Buddhist, and Judeo-Christian principles.” Timothy Robert Cochrell, “Foundations for a Biblical Model of Servant Leadership in the Slave Imagery of Luke- Acts” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015), 10. Cochrell also notes that servant leadership is a prevailing theory in leadership, yet there is not an authentically Christian form of servant leadership. Cochrell proposes that slave-leadership as drawn from Luke-Acts can serve as a model for leadership that provides a comprehensive and encompassing foundation for a leader’s identity and behavior. There is a need for a Christian form of servant leadership because current models of servant leadership are incompatible with the Christian worldview. Servant leadership has a high view of man, an eclectic spirituality founded on multiple worldviews, and is focused on serving followers without first serving God. For these reasons, servant leadership is clearly in need of a biblical paradigm. Cochrell,
“Foundations for a Biblical Model of Servant Leadership.” 4-10.
33 Homes and Smith believe the police subculture shapes and forms the norms of a police department. Furthermore, these norms are the source that contributes to officers’ attitudes and actions at the
addresses the internal factors and the police subculture is needed. Yet, law enforcement has frequently overlooked internal factors. In the book Race and Police Brutality, Homes and Smith do examine internal factors and note that social dynamics, specifically
disparate social identities between the police and ethnic minorities, contribute to police brutality. Unfortunately, they offer no solution to the problem.
Jack L. Cowell and Charles Huth do attempt to offer a solution to the internal problems contributing to tensions between communities and police officers. They call for an “anima rooted in integrity” as an essential component to transform the problematic police culture.34 Predicated on behavior theory, the authors propose an “inner way,” or an anima of “self-respect,” that “manifests in unconditional respect for all people.”35 They capture many of the contributing factors to the problems in law enforcement and realize the need for an inner guiding principle resulting in respect for others.36 In other words, they understand that officers’ attitudes and the police culture must be transformed through internal measures to address the problem of abuse. However, the authors do not
necessarily emphasize leadership. Instead, they focus on training as the medium of
implementation for their anima of self-respect. Also, they do not anchor their conceptions of self-respect and unconditional respect for others to any explicit theological foundation.
The danger of power and the human proclivity for evil are common themes in sociological studies and in anecdotal reflections;37 social structures are recognized as
street level. The police subculture is “powerful” and “the normative framework for action.” Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 25.
34 Cowell and Huth, Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect, xviii.
35 Cowell and Huth, 2–3.
36 Cowell and Huth acknowledge the trend in police officers to create social distance from their communities and dehumanize the people they police. Cowell and Huth, 46. They also recognize that officers can adopt an attitude of moral superiority that magnifies the weakness of others and is used to justify abuse. Cowell and Huth, 15–17.
37 See Douglass, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass; Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo, “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison”; Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect.
problematic when they negatively influence people. However, little attention by law enforcement leadership has been given to internal factors associated with the dynamic relationship of power, human nature, and social structures in law enforcement.
In summary, the relationship between spirituality and law enforcement in scholarly literature has only recently been explored, and little attention has been directed toward Christian leadership theory in law enforcement. Furthermore, although Christianity has been vaguely associated with servant leadership, no substantial conception of Christian servant leadership has been attempted in law enforcement, specifically that correlates followership with servant leadership.38 Lastly, although some literature exists that recognizes the internal factors contributing to police brutality and some solutions have been offered, there are currently no Christian law enforcement leadership models constructed to address the internal factors contributing to police brutality.
Research Methodology
The void in the literature that highlights the need for an authentically Christian leadership theory that can be implemented by law enforcement to address the problem of police brutality informs this research methodology. Constructing a leadership paradigm to address the problem is the central rationale for this study. However, before explicating a Christian leadership model for law enforcement, the police context must be understood, specifically the internal factors related to police brutality. Thus, social identity and its contributing factors are explained. The nature and problem of social structures—
particularly factors related to organizational culture—are explored. Social identity, power, human nature, and the ontological reality of social structures may all interact and contribute to the problem of abuse and police brutality. How these factors interact and contribute to the problem of police brutality is explicated as well.
38 Crystal J. Davis notes, “As a consummate researcher in the field of leadership, I realized that in all of the books and leadership works I have read, I had not come across much in the way of the follower as a servant leader.” Crystal J. Davis, preface to Davis, Servant Leadership and Followership, xv.
Since law enforcement agencies are secular institutions, an existing leadership theory in law enforcement must be identified that can serve as a potential model for a Christian leadership synthesis. As noted, servant leadership is already a prevalent and likely preferred leadership style in law enforcement and shows some congruity with followership and Christianity. A brief history of contemporary leadership theory in relation to law enforcement leadership will be provided before evaluating servant leadership for application in law enforcement. In the process, some problems associated with the nebulous nature of servant leadership are explained;39 and the core
characteristics that emerge from Robert Greenleaf’s work are identified as a more practical model.40
Next, the history of followership is reviewed, culminating in the concept of Christ-centered followership as leadership. Key aspects of this leadership theory are identified. These key aspects of the leadership theory are instrumental in shaping and informing servant leadership in law enforcement. A synthesis is then constructed between
39 Denise L. Parris and John W. Peachy note that servant leadership still lacks a universally accepted definition. Additionally, servant leadership varies in differing contexts and cultures. Denise L.
Parris and John W. Peachy, “A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts,” Journal of Business Ethics 113 (2013): 377–93. Robert F. Russell and A.
Gregory Stone note that servant leadership is not complete or systematically defined. Furthermore, there is not sufficient empirical research to support a comprehensive model of servant leadership. Additionally, they note the disparity in the literature related to the attributes related to servant leadership. Robert F Russell and A. Gregory Stone, “A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes: Developing a Practical Model,” Leadership
& Organization Development Journal 23, no. 3 (2002): 145–53. Sen Sendjaya addresses the ambiguous nature of servant leadership. He notes the disparity of the concept, particularly when it comes to identifying characteristics. Sen Sendjaya, “Demystifying Servant Leadership,” in Servant Leadership: Developments in Theory and Research, ed. Dirk Van Dierendonck and Kathleen Patterson (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 39–51.
40 Larry Spears reviews the concept of a servant leader and how Greenleaf began his work before identifying ten servant leader characteristics. Spears draws these characteristics from Greenleaf’s work alone. Thus, given the disparity in identifying the characteristics of a servant leader, Spears’ article is important in establishing a core of characteristics in Greenleaf’s work. Although similar applications with servant leadership can be seen in historical leaders well before Greenleaf, the beginning of servant leadership as a leadership theory in contemporary times starts with Greenleaf. Thus, Spears’ article provides a set of leadership characteristics that reflects the core source of the leadership theory. Larry C. Spears, “Servant Leadership and Robert K. Greenleaf’s Legacy,” in van Dierendonck and Patterson, Servant Leadership, 12–24.
Christ-centered followership as leadership and servant leadership in law enforcement. As a result of this synthesis, an essential focus on biblical-metaphorical shepherding is added to the leadership paradigm.
Lastly, servant leadership predicated upon Christ-centered followership with an emphasis on biblical-metaphorical shepherding is applied to selected factors that contribute to the problem of police brutality against racial minorities. Each contributing factor is addressed by key components of the leadership style and worldview, and the leadership style is presented for application by law enforcement leaders.
Delimitations
Although this study explains the broader concept of followership, it primarily focuses on and utilizes the unique conception of Christ-centered followership found in The God Who Goes Before You: Pastoral Leadership as Christ-Centered Followership by Michael S. Wilder and Timothy Paul Jones. Some attention is given to the history and progression of followership, and some attention is also given to key components of followership. The history and conception of followership in the review is directly related to the relationship and formation of Christ-centered followership.
The trend in law enforcement literature, as already noted, is eclectic and religiously pluralistic whenever spirituality is incorporated into law enforcement. This study is specifically related to Christian leadership; thus, the Christian worldview is never compromised. However, the model is readily applicable to any leader in law enforcement who accepts the validity and applicability of the model.
Servant leadership can be a broad term; therefore, this study limits the concept of servant leadership to the leadership theory that emerged from Robert Greenleaf’s work. More specifically, this study focuses on the ten characteristics of a servant leader
from Greenleaf’s work that are already acknowledged by law enforcement.41 Law enforcement is a secular construct; thus, any Christian leadership theory designed to reconstruct the organizational structure of law enforcement would likely be rejected. This study limits the application primarily to the character of the leader so that it can be applied in the secular law enforcement context for the purpose of influencing officers, police departments, and the overall police subculture.
The biblical concept of shepherding is an important part of this thesis. The biblical meanings and implications of shepherding are related to law enforcement leadership and the internal factors that contribute to police brutality. This study limits shepherding to a biblical concept and the application and expression of shepherding to the law enforcement context and the specific problem of the abuse of power in the form of police brutality.
In summary, this study focuses on the formation of a Christian leadership theory that will be usable in law enforcement. The theory is constructed through a
synthesis of Christ-centered followership with selected characteristics of a servant leader.
The leadership theory is applied specifically to influence police officers and the police subculture with the intent of addressing the problem of police brutality.
Research Assumptions
Although this thesis criticizes problematic practices in law enforcement, this thesis is not anti-law enforcement. Law enforcement is a necessary and God ordained institution.42 Additionally, law enforcement is an honorable profession in which the
41 The IACP manual is a primary source for police leaders and presents the ten characteristics of servant leadership as espoused by Larry Spears as an accurate representation of servant leadership characteristics. Peak et al., Police Resources.
42 The apostle Paul writes,
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers, are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is
majority of officers serve with integrity. Officers regularly use force appropriately, and many officers treat people from minority communities with respect and compassion.
The police profession—despite the problem of police brutality—is not
irredeemable. Police leaders and police officers are capable of change. Law enforcement—
as shown in the next chapter—has overcome many obstacles, and the problem of police brutality can be mitigated.
Definitions
External factors. External factors are those factors related to department rules, policies, organizational structure, and disciplinary measures, in addition to federal, state, and local laws that govern the police.43
Internal factors. Internal factors are those factors related to the culture, worldview, and social structure of law enforcement agencies.44
Law enforcement or police. When used as a noun, law enforcement can emphasize the aspects of enforcement rather than the broader duties of the police; and police as a noun can emphasize the peace keeping aspects of police officers’ duties and place less emphasis on the enforcement aspect. Technically, the term police only applies to local and state entities. Conversely, law enforcement is a more inclusive term that references local, state, and federal law officers. Despite these nuances, law enforcement and police are more commonly used as interchangeable terms or synonyms. For the purpose of this thesis, law enforcement and police are used as synonyms. These terms are used to reference persons or agencies involved in the general practices associated with
good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13: 1–5)
43 The working definition was drawn from Darrel W. Stephens, “Organization in
Management,” in Local Government Police Management, 4th ed., ed. William A. Geller and Darrel W.
Stephens (Wilmette, IL: ICMA Publishers, 2003), 47–48.
44 The working definition was drawn from Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 25.
the mission to serve and protect communities through enforcement and peace keeping.
Since this thesis is concerned with police brutality against minorities, and historically these incidents involve municipal or local police, unless otherwise specified, law enforcement and police refer to local or municipal entities.45
Police brutality. Police brutality is the excessive use of force by police when assessed in relation to the factors that warrant an arrest or seizure by the police and the reasonable use of force to counteract a person’s resistance.46
Police power. The police are authorized to enforce the law and maintain peace in communities. They possess the governmental authority and power to use force to overcome resistance from citizens to fulfill these duties, even deadly force.47
Social distance. The police can have an identity that is drastically different than racial minorities. As a result of the disparity, the police can have difficulty understanding and relating to racial minorities in a personal and respectful manner.
Furthermore, this trend can cause the police to perceive themselves as superior to the community.48
45 The working definition was drawn from Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert, “The Foundation of the Police Role in Society,” in Critical Issues in Policing, 7th ed., ed. Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2015), 8–9.
46 The working definition was drawn from Jeff Rojek, Scott H. Decker, and Allen E. Wagner,
“Addressing Police Misconduct: The Role of Citizen Complaints,” in Dunham and Geoffrey, Critical Issues in Policing, 165.
47 The working definition was drawn from Joycelyn M. Pollock, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012), 411.
48 The working definition was drawn from Malcolm D. Homes and Brad W. Smith, Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 4-8.
CHAPTER 2
THE POLICE HISTORY AND CULTURE
The police are a complex entity and the police context is multifaceted.1
Additionally, police brutality is a complex and multifaceted issue that relates to the police context and the community.2 As a result, an examination of the police context is necessary to understand factors that relate to the problem of police brutality. A brief history of the police and the history of abuse will be provided before defining police brutality and reviewing some of the proposed contributing factors.
Police officers exist and operate in a social structure that includes a distinct subculture, and the influence of that social structure may reinforce and promote behaviors that essentially lead to police brutality.3 As a result, an explanation related to the power
1 Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor note that the “preservation of peace is more complex” than simple enforcement and that because of society “policing is subject to, and continuously shaped by, a multitude of forces at work in our larger society.” Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor, Police Administration: Structures, Processes, and Behaviors, 8th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2012), 4.
2 Gina Robertiello notes,
Police brutality is a multifaceted term, the use of which signifies protest against conduct, policies, and practices that have resulted in individuals and groups feeling abused or brutalized by the hands of the police. Although their implications overlap somewhat with phenomena of excessive force, officer misconduct, and system-wide racial disparity in criminal justice outcomes, charges of police brutality tend to transcend procedural examinations of specific circumstances or individual incidents, drawing attention instead to the overall climate of police-community relationships. (Gina Robertiello, The Use and Abuse of Police Power in America [Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2017], 211)
3 Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe explain,
Like a tribe or an ethnic group, every occupational group develops recognizable and distinctive rules, customs, perceptions, and interpretations of that they see, along with moral judgements. . . . Police also live by a profusion of such unwritten rules. Some have been adopted by police all over the Western world, such as customary ways of dealing with people who challenge police authority. Others are the unwritten norms prevailing in a specific department. Every police department has such written and unwritten guidelines, including the proprieties of accepting gratuities, discounts, bribes, or favors.
of social structures, and specifically the police department as a social structure with a subculture, is necessary.
Within the police subculture, the police have a social identity that may be a contributing factor to police brutality.4 The police interact with racial minorities who may have a contrasting social identity, this contrast may further exacerbate the tension
between the police and the communities in which they are assigned to serve.5 Thus, the social identity of the police will be examined in relation to the tension and volatility that may lead to police brutality. Social identities that define the police may also lead to social distance and the dehumanization of particular people groups, specifically racial minorities in impoverished communities;6 and the power the police possess may further exacerbate the problem. Power can breed corruption, and power is particularly dangerous when aimed at a dehumanized population.7 These factors are explained in relation to the problem of police brutality against racial minorities.
(Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe, Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force [New York: The Free Press, 1993], 90-91)
The authors also note that the police make moral choices “developed within the subculture of a police department.” Skolnick and Fyfe, Above the Law, 90–91.
4 Homes and Smith note, “With this sense of mission and strong ingroup solidarity, police work provides officers with more than a job—it is the core of their identity.” Malcolm D. Homes and Brad W.
Smith, Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 48.
5 Homes and Smith explain,
An oppositional identity prevalent in the ghetto and barrio arises in response to the discrimination and repudiates cultural conventions of white society, many of which the police are bound to uphold.
Thus, the contrast between police and minorities is stark, prompting the activation of social identity processes that will create ingroup cohesion and ethnocentrism in situations where they face one another. (Homes and Smith, Race and Police Brutality, 52–53)
6 Cowell and Huth write, “This type of ‘class distinction’ serves to widen the gap between the police and the communities they patrol. Officers feel more comfortable distancing themselves from subjects mentally, physically, and emotionally, which permits them to dehumanize the most challenging of their clientele, but inevitably dehumanizes everyone geographically or racially associated.” Jack L. Cowell and Charles Huth, Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect: Transforming Law Enforcement and Police Training (New York: CRC Press, 2010), 46.
7 Anthony Stanford notes, “When police officers enter this profession because they are power driven, that power becomes absolutely corrupt.” Anthony Stanford, Copping Out: The Consequences of
This chapter will show that police brutality has been a problem since the beginning of policing in America. Although the problem was more apparent in certain periods, the past decade may highlight the need for solutions to police brutality more than any other period. Additionally, the police subculture that forms the police identity and shapes community relations contributes to the problem of police brutality. Lastly, this chapter will illustrate and emphasize the need for internal reform that addresses matters related to the social structure of police departments, specifically the problematic police subculture.
The History of the American Police, Police Power, and Abuse
Law enforcement in America is not a static institution. The police have adjusted to the needs of society as well as from key historical events that served as an impetus for change.8 The history of the police will be traced through three periods. In each period, important events, matters related to police powers, and abuses of power will be highlighted.
However, before explicating the three periods, it is important to understand the amendments to the United States Constitution that were instrumental in governing the police. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments significantly govern the authority and actions of the police. The Fourth Amendment limits police search and seizure power and protects the privacy rights of citizens; the Fifth Amendment limits the power of the police to detain, protects citizens against self-incrimination, and ensures due process; the Sixth
Police Corruption and Misconduct (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2015), 12. Zimbardo states, “Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil.” Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (New York: Random House, 2008) xii. Additionally, he notes the abuse committed by American soldiers against the captives in the Abu Ghraib Prison. The soldiers dehumanized the prisoners and with the power they possessed, they committed abuses that should have been inconstant with their cultural morality.
Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, 324–68.
8 Larry K. Gaines, Victor E. Kappeler, and Joseph B. Vaughn explain, “The changes in policing have paralleled changes in society with the police responding to political, economic, social, and cultural influences.” Larry K. Gaines, Victor E. Kappeler, and Joseph B. Vaughn, Policing in America, 3rd ed.
(Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing, 1999), 95.
